I didn't say anything about being 'special' (although the answer is 'plenty'.) I will respond the same to such comments about ANY minority group. I choose fights with caution, but ignorance is the biggest problem facing the human species.
Jeff Walther wrote:
>> Last OS *my* 68000 Mac Plus has run is MacOS 7.1. MacTracker
>> claims 7.5.5, I can't dispute that as I haven't tried it but I expect
>> it might not do much good (no RAM left for applications). Same is
>> claimed for the Mac SE and Classic and PowerBook 100. MacTracker
>> doesn't report the Outbounds (Jeff?) but since (I think) they used
>> motherboards from the above systems,
>
> The Outbounds used motherboards designed and built by Outbound but
> with Apple ROMs installed which were scavenged from Apple Macs.
>
> I can't speak to the Notebook series but the Laptop (a much cooler
> machine, IMHO) will not run past Mac OS 7.0.1. However, this is a
> limitation in Outbound support.
Mac OS 7.5.5 runs on any Mac except the 128K, the 512K and any Mac released after 7.5.5 was current. I have run it on a 2 MB PowerBook 100, and found it performs surprisingly well. More RAM is recommended, though, I wouldn't have put up with it for daily use on a machine with less than 4 MB RAM.
However, I always felt that System 7.1 is a better choice for machines that support it than 7.5. After all, 7.5 is basically 7.1 with a bunch of shareware goodies thrown in.
,xtG
tsooJ
I'm not entirely sure if this is off topic yet(hence why I put it on
cctalk), but I know on a hobbyist level it's fairly rare.
On Saturday I'll be picking up an AS/400 model 9406-600 originally purchased
September 1997 with all the software and docs, licences etc that were ever
used with the machine, from the original owner. I've contacted IBM and
arranged license transfer (there was thankfully no charge)
Does anyone else here deal with AS/400, or have a lingering interest in it?
Secondly, I'm thinking of connecting a classic IBM terminal to it such as a
5251 S/34 term instead of the one that comes with it (something fairly
modern, not sure of the model yet) I am curious; are any limitations on what
I can connect, or are all twinax terminals pretty equal from a connectivity
standpoint?
I expect they use Scart as opposed to D type for the same reason they
use phono and not 75 Ohm BNC and XLR.
Its cheaper in mass produced consumer electronics.
Rod Smallwood
-----Original Message-----
From: cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jules Richardson
Sent: 03 January 2007 23:08
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: D-shell connector age?
Adrian Graham wrote:
> On 3/1/07 21:33, "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>> Anyone know where D-shell connectors first appeared on equipment?
>>
>> Interesting thread going on in a local group at the moment about why
>> SCART [1] sockets are so horrible and nasty (prone to breaking pins,
>> difficult to line up, prone to falling out etc.) and why something
>> better, like a D-shell connector, wasn't chosen instead.
>
> SCART was originally known as PERITEL and originated in France.
>
> Make of that what you will :)
To be honest, it's a great idea - and much better than non-European
countries where the typical connectivity is via RF only.
Going source->modulator->tuner->display never did seem like a good idea
when you could just go source->display via separate shielded RGB
signals. (The picture quality I've seen on the typical US setup is
piss-poor compared to the UK, jokes about NTSC aside)
It's just a shame that the connector they picked for the standard is so
lousy.
Having looked at some old pricelists, SCART connectors weren't much
cheaper than D-shells - and given that they were typically used on
expensive equipment which only contained a couple of them, the
difference couldn't have been significant at all.
The only thing I can think of (other than it being some odd political
decision) is that you know SCART is SCART; if using D-shells there would
have been a few idiots trying to plug any old computer cable into their
equipment.
That hardly seems justification to enforce a nasty connector choice,
though.
Assuming that D-shell connectors were around, of course - but if Chuck's
right then they should have been readily available in the mid-70's. Pin
spacing is wider on SCART, so presumably they suffer less from
interference - but we all know that D-shells are perfectly good for
video (particularly at TV rates).
cheers
Jules
>
>Subject: back to the AGC, was Re: TTL 7400's Available
> From: Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:24:39 -0800
> To: General at priv-edtnaa05.telusplanet.net,
> "Discussion at priv-edtnaa05.telusplanet.net":On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>>
>> I stumbled on this document:
>>
>> http://klabs.org/mapld04/papers/g/g233_alonso_p.doc
>>
>> while wondering about AC transformer-coupled logic and discovered
>> that the original idea for the Apollo guidance computer was to use AC-
>> coupled (core-transistor) logic.
>>
>> How's that for tying two threads together? :)
>
>Now that was a fun read. I'm still trying to understand his description of
>the core rope ROM though. I'm familiar with core-rope ROM (or at least one
>version of it) from attempting to make a reader to dump the contents of a Wang
>calc microcode ROM, but the AGC version sounds like the
>address-decoding/word-selection is done differently (..need a diagram).
cant help on core rope.
>And whats up with this mention of LCD displays? I didn't think there was
>anything practical available that early, or that was going to stand up to the
>rigours of space-flight - I have a calc with one of the first commercial LCDs
>(1972) and it's still kind of rudimentary - slow, poor contrast, temperature sensitive...
My memory of LCDs is they were way too late for the AGC and the basic
AGC design used either LEDs or Lamps in a 7 segment format.
>(And it confirmed that the AGC was constructed from a single gate/IC type.)
That statement I believe is in error. While the logic used was RTL and a
single family type the logic elements for that family by the mid 60s were
more diverse than just a two input NOR. My junkbox contains parts from
the era and includes JK-FF, three input nor, inverter buffers, and three
wide NOR parts. It is true that the 2input NOR is the fundamental RTL
logic building block there was nothing to limit it to 2,3 or 4 inputs
for the die size of the time other than the hermetic flat packs of
the day were typically 8/10/12 pins.
Examples of mid 60s RTL.
ul900 buffer inverter
uL914 dual two input nor
uL923 jk-ff
uL925 dual 2 input nor gate expander (914 withput collector resistor).
These were widely available and purchaseable by hobbists in 1967
at reasonable prices, typically under $2.00US. Most ham/electronics
magazines had DMM and frequency counter projects using these parts
by or during 1968.
History of transistor computers by that time frame had already proven
that a minimal set of logic blocks made general computer design easier.
The TX1 and TX2 could stand as foundation machines on that basis alone.
Those bocks were an inverter(buffer), NOR or NAND, and a register (FF).
Any more specialized parts were likely used for core or other very limited
use parts of a computer.
RTL is old, some of the peices I have are now reaching 40!
Allison
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Have you googled? That name sounds really familiar, are you sure they
aren't still doing Ada stuff?
Zane
------------------
Yes, there still do softwware. But in the late 80's, they made complete
systems, designing all their own hardware. That's what I'm trying to find.
Billy
Billy wrote:
And one that is driving me crazy, a company that supplied Ada systems to the
military. Was first based in Mt. View, then moved to San Jose into one of
the old Amdahl buildings. I can visualize the people and systems but can't
remember the name. Getting old sucks.
Of course as soon as I clicked send, the name came to me - Rational Systems.
Anybody remember them or have any of their systems?
Billy
At 04:38 PM 1/3/2007, you wrote:
>At this point, I would just use the cassette version, unless I needed the
>extra memory. I would be tempted to patch the ID text. I might change
>"VERSION" to "VER PT " and "VER CT ". It's not original, but could avoid
>confusion.
Is it not possible that the only difference between the paper tape and
cassette is the CSAVE and CLOAD commands? (as well as --KCACR-- in the
opening text) I think we need a memory image of unloaded paper tape and
unloaded cassette basic to compare. Hopefully it is "patched" in a way
that makes few differences. Or maybe the commands were just activated...
>Next, I would build a BASIC version timeline based on reading all issues of
>Computer Notes in chronological order. That would be a good time to make
>hardware timelines and copy info about software and hardware changes.
>
>Now you see why I collect the newest Altairs. I can assume I have the most
>powerful debugged MITS products. I wasn't in a hurry for the 680 because I
>always needed drives for development and business software. As a collector,
>I appreciate the weight and size and the opportunity to learn the M6800 at
>the bit and ASM level.
>
> >The KCACR doesn't seem very popular.
>
>I need a better timeline on the 680 and Pertec acquisition. After looking at
>some issues of Computer Notes, I see that the 680 was around for awhile.
>Pertec purchased a lot of problems when the bought MITS. They may have
>killed the 680 just as the KCACR was finished. The documentation was not
>updated and few people got new KCACR. Some 680 owners may be industrial and
>not interested in cassettes. Much of my stuff and a lot from eBay auctions
>came from Albuquerque after MITS closed. The component or product may not
>have reached many MITS customers.
>
>The KCACR is popular with me. I have two and a new reason to use the 680.
>I've avoided cassettes on the 8800. Now I have a smaller platform to use for
>learning. The 680 may lack software, but BASIC makes it easier write more.
>There are good books on the 6800 with small code examples. A 33K 680 with
>BASIC and switches with lights could keep someone busy for awhile.
>
> >What could we do to determine if the basics are the same? This would tell
>us the math function similarity...
>
>I think that is too much detail for now. I'd just use the newest version
>that would fit in memory with my application.
So far I only have two software applications for the 680. Even if they are
the same except for two commands. ; )
> >I could run the forensics on the Altair32 emulator and on both versions of
> >the 680 basic. If it matches up with any of the 8080 basics then we've
> >found the "version" of 8080 basic used as a starting point.
>
>Interesting idea. I'd start with Reading Computer Notes.
It would only prove anything if all the 8800 basics have different finger
prints. The disk basics could have the same fingerprint and we wouldn't
care about that, I think. This doesn't rule out bug fixes in all non math
areas...
>I hope you find someone with additional software. Did you find a KCACR
>manual? I don't have one and haven't checked Steve's list. I will look at
>pricelists and see what is listed for the 680.
I'm sure I will. Steve has the manuals. I'm making a big list for him. : )
Grant
Yes, there still do softwware. But in the late 80's, they made complete
systems, designing all their own hardware. That's what I'm trying to find.
--
CHM just got a system w/o docs a month or so ago
Did you mean Arete? We have one, and it ran a version of Unix called Arix.
> This is a university town and,
> so G3's aren't hard to come by cheap if the urge should ever hit me
> again.
Beige G3's are OK, and still have SCSI and serial ports. I have a gaggle
of G3 powerbooks that I use at CHM for various recovery projects. Blue
and White machines switched to USB and dumped SCSI and serial, which
make them less interesting. If you want that sort of machine, get 2nd
generation or later Grey G4. Avoid the last couple of generations of
G4's, they had cooling problems...
Putting a 1+GHz CPU upgrade into the earlier G4s makes a pretty decent
system. I'm using one as my main machine at CHM.
> I'd probably have to BUY an AAUI-to-RJ45 ethernet adapter
Probably not worth messing with. You aren't going to be happy with the
performance of a first generation PowerMac.
If you really want a shell in the OS 9 environment, there's MPW.
I remember someone playing with getting a bare-metal OS going on PPC
Macs at one point with a CLI. Don't know how far they got.
This is sort of interesting if you wanted to do some low level turn the
interrupts off kind of programming on the machine, since you can't
actually turn interrupts off completely in the OS 9 environment.
